Kansas Governor Sebelius Vetoes Bill to Revive 2 Coal-Fired Plants

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: New York Times

By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: March 22, 2008

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas vetoed a measure on Friday that would have forced the state to approve two coal-fired power plants producing large amounts of carbon dioxide.

The veto, which was expected, is unlikely to be overridden in the Kansas House of Representatives, two legislators said. The State Senate passed the measure with a veto-proof majority.

The two proposed plants, to be built by the Sunflower Electric Corporation in the southwest corner of the state, would generate 1,400 megawatts of electricity and produce up to 11 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Because of the large production of greenhouse gases, the state’s secretary of health and the environment, Rod Bremby, withheld approval for the plants.

“We know that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change,” Governor Sebelius wrote in a news release. “As an agricultural state, Kansas is particularly vulnerable. Therefore, reducing pollutants benefits our state not only in the short term but also for generations of Kansans to come.”...

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/22kansas.html

[glowing]

1. Good news.. Unlike that state, FL just decided to soak billions into

building 2 nuc plants... What a bunch of ass hats. The state is in a recession.. We have the ability to go into a solar expansion and create a real industry.. but no, the Republicans and Dino's are all bought and paid. They really don't care about people.. they only care for themselves.

[Selatius]

2. Solar doesn't have as much lobby money as the nuclear industry has.

They got lots of money to buy politicians partly because the nuclear industry also is involved with war spending, mainly research and development of nuclear weapons and Bush's pet project with mini-nukes. War is big bucks.

[Pavulon]

3. Westinghouse

does not develop nuclear weapons. They do make great reactors that the Navy has used for decades safely.

Cant smelt aluminum when it is cloudy.

Nuclear is the best option currently available to the US.

[glowing]

4. No, its not.. Not until someone has figured out a proper way to dispose of the waste.

AND a proper way to keep the people who live near the plants safe. Do you think these sites are scheduled going to be zoned into a wealthy subdivision, NO. They are scheduled for rural areas where there is little money and time for farmers to gather their pitch forks and chase the corrupt politicians out.

Do you know how much money the nuc plants cost the American people in tax revenues? Do you realize what the cost of treating cancer costs the people in these areas? Do you want to be eating radiated oranges? NO, this is not an efficient energy producing structure. Anyone who buys into this notion is probably getting paid off by the industry. It costs a lot of money and energy to produce nuc power. The uranium mining is still hazardous and an environmental hazard in its own right.

Sorry, if money was put into energy systems like it was put into the Space Race or the Manhattan Project, we would be off of non-sustainable energy.

[BearSquirrel2]

8. It's slated for deserts ...

It's slated to be stored in deserts where virtually no one lives and the concept of your backward seems to be somewhat conflated.

I think the nuclear reactors we have to keep on humming. However, the idea that we should expand nuclear is a really poor one until we can get some idea of the service record of Yucca Mountain if it is ever allowed to receive waste.

[AlbertCat]

5. Ahhhhhh....

It's nice to see these signs....small though they be.... that the GOP mantra of the 80's, 90's and now: "Greed is good", is starting to fall from grace and considered nonviable and just plain tacky.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Yes -- nice to see in a state like Kansas, and nice to see any small sign. nt

[mbperrin]

6. Hooray!

NOW can we get going on wind and solar?

[BearSquirrel2]

9. Wind should be big ...

I think the plains of Kansas would be ideal to install a LOT of wind turbines. I don't see solar being as effective in Kansas though.

Ultimately, we have to buy into the fact that are energy supply will be varied and that existing energy sources will NEVER be phased out. Rather, they will just be muted.

[roody]

10. Wow. Some wisdom in Kansas.

I love my -$53.00 electric bill. Not nuclear nor coal produced.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Most of the energy generated by this plant would go to Colorado

Many of us Kansans want to know why Colorado won't build their own plant for their energy needs. :shrug: